The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns over the maintainability and bona fides of a public interest litigation (PIL) instituted by the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) in the case related to the entry of women devotees to the Sabarimala temple and other larger religious issues.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the locus standi of the petitioner body and scrutinised the institutional competence of a lawyers’ association to invoke the Court’s writ jurisdiction in matters involving religious practices and denominational rights.
Expressing strong reservations over the purpose and legal basis of the original PIL that culminated in the 2018 Constitution Bench judgement permitting entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple, the Apex Court observed that it was necessary to examine whether the petition amounted to a legitimate public interest action or constituted an abuse of the process of law.
The Bench repeatedly questioned the petitioner’s standing, asking how a juristic entity such as a lawyers’ association could claim to be an aggrieved party in a matter rooted in religious faith and essential religious practices. It also raised issues regarding internal authorisation, including whether the association had passed any formal resolution approving the initiation of the litigation and whether its office-bearers had endorsed the filing.
The present proceedings arise out of a reference made at the review stage of the 2018 judgment, in which a Constitution Bench had identified broader constitutional questions requiring authoritative determination. These include the scope and application of the essential religious practices test, the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 guaranteeing religious freedom and Article 14 ensuring equality, as well as the reconciliation of precedent laid down in the Shirur Mutt and Durgah Committee cases.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel attempted to challenge the theological basis cited for restricting the entry of women, particularly submissions attributed to the temple’s tanthri regarding the deity’s preferences. This line of argument drew further judicial pushback, with the Bench reiterating that the core issue before it concerned abstract questions of constitutional law rather than disputed questions of fact or theological interpretation.
The Court also signalled that indiscriminate invocation of public interest litigation in sensitive religious matters may undermine judicial discipline and institutional credibility. It advised the petitioner to confine submissions strictly to the seven legal questions framed for adjudication and avoid digressing into factual controversies or ideological assertions.
The Bench further indicated that continuation of such proceedings must align with established principles governing PIL jurisprudence, including demonstrable public injury, bona fide intent and absence of private or extraneous motives. The observations suggest a broader judicial effort to recalibrate the contours of public interest litigation, particularly in cases implicating religious autonomy and constitutional morality.
The hearing is ongoing.
The post Sabarimala reference case: Supreme Court questions maintainability of PIL filed by lawyers body appeared first on India Legal.